Cadley-Fangkingan Law Office

30/08/2026

26/08/2026

27/06/2026

27/06/2026

Iginiit ng na hindi sapat ang pagliban o pag-absent sa trabaho para patunayan ang pag-abandona sa trabaho. Hindi rin ito magbibigay-katwiran sa pagtanggal ng isang mangagawa sa trabaho.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, idineklarang guilty ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang Green Era Biotech Corp. (Green Era Biotech) at Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) sa ilegal na pagtanggal sa production utility worker na si Alvin G. Carpio (Carpio).

Sinabi ni Carpio na tinanggap siya ng Green Era Biotech pero inilipat kalaunan sa manpower service provider nito na Great Value. Matapos siyang lumiban sa trabaho sa Green Era Biotech sa loob ng walong sunod na araw dahil sa sakit, binigyan siya ng Great Value ng notice para magpaliwanag. Binalaan din siya na hahantong sa abiso ng absence without leave (AWOL) kapag may isa pang katulad na paglabag.

Lumiban ulit si Carpio sa trabaho ng siyam na magkakasunod na araw. Nagbigay ang Great Value sa kanya ng AWOL notice na nagsasaad na ang kanyang patuloy na pagliban ay itinuturing na serious misconduct at pag-abandona sa trabaho na parehong basehan para matanggal sa trabaho.

Nang maglaon, nag-leave ulit siya na may pahintulot ng kanyang bisor. Nang bumalik siya sa trabaho kinabukasan, pinagbawalan siyang pumasok sa lugar ng trabaho. Makalipas ang ilang araw, ipinaalam sa kanya ng kanyang foreman na hindi na siya maaaring mag-report sa trabaho dahil idineklara na siyang AWOL.

Nagsampa si Carpio ng reklamo para sa illegal dismissal.

Sa pagpasya na iligal ang pagkakatanggal kay Carpio, iginiit ng Korte Suprema na ang pag-abandona, o ang sinadya at hindi makatwirang pagtanggi ng isang empleyado na ipagpatuloy ang kanyang trabaho, ay nangangailangan ng patunay ng dalawang elemento: (1) lumiban ang empleyado nang walang wastong dahilan; at (2) malinaw na nilayon ng empleyado na wakasan ang relasyon ng employer-empleyado.

Sa mga ito, mas mahalaga ang pangalawang elemento at dapat ipakita sa pamamagitan ng mga aksyon ng empleyado. Dahil ang pag-abandona ay isang batayan para sa pagpapaalis, pinapasan ng employer ang pasanin na patunayan ang parehong elemento.

Sa kasong ito, bagama’t hindi awtorisado ang absence ni Carpio, walang nakitang ebidensiya ang Korte Suprema na balak niyang talikuran ang kanyang trabaho. Sa halip, sinubukan niyang bumalik sa trabaho at agad na kwinestiyon ang kanyang pagkatanggal sa trabaho sa paghain ng reklamo.

Inatas ng Korte Suprema na ibalik si Carpio pero sinabi nito na hindi siya karapat-dapat sa backwages dahil ginawa ang kanyang dismissal in good faith dahil na rin sa kanyang hindi awtorisadong pagliban. Kung hindi na posible ang muling pagbabalik, dapat na bayaran siya ng separation pay ng kumpanya.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168002

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165378

Basahin ang Dissenting Opinion ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165383

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

12/06/2026

A call.

24/04/2026

The (SC) has ruled that ISCO Holding Corporation (ISCO) cannot register its “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍 & 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐆𝐍” mark as it constitutes Nikon Corporation’s trade name and is confusingly similar to the well-known “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” trademark of the said corporation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied ISCO’s petition and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which rejected ISCO’s trademark application.

ISCO filed an application for a trademark for its home and household goods containing the design of an anchor enclosed in a circle with the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍”.

Nikon Corp., a foreign corporation and prior registrant and user of the “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” mark in the Philippines, opposed the application, arguing that ISCO’s mark is confusingly similar to its own mark.

The Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‑BLA) agreed with Nikon Corp. and denied ISCO’s application. Although the IPO Office of the Director General later reversed this ruling, the CA reinstated the IPO-BLA’s decision, prompting ISCO to elevate the case to the SC.

ISCO claimed that its goods are unrelated to Nikon Corp.’s and that differences, such as the image of an anchor enclosed in a circle and the color scheme, prevent consumer confusion.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling and held that ISCO’s mark cannot be registered. It explained that trademarks are used to identify and distinguish goods or services. Under Section 147 of the 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, one of the rights of a trademark owner is to exclude others from using their trademark in a way that would confuse consumers and cause financial harm to the owner.

If a well‑known trademark is registered in the Philippines, no other party may register an identical or confusingly similar mark—even if the goods are different.

In this case, the SC found that Nikon Corp.’s trademark is well‑known. The NIKON mark has long been used, promoted, and registered worldwide, including in the Philippines, with the company enjoying significant global sales and market presence.

The SC also found NIKON to be a highly distinctive trademark. It is a coined or invented word with no ordinary meaning in English or Filipino and is not commonly used in the Philippines except as a trademark.

Analyzing the two marks, the SC found that ISCO’s trademark is confusingly similar to NIKON’s. It applied the 𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭, which focuses on the most noticeable and memorable part of the marks. Minor differences in design, color, or layout are disregarded.

Both ISCO’s and Nikon Corp.’s marks prominently use the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍.” This word is the dominant feature of both marks. They are spelled the same, appear in bold capital letters, and sound exactly the same when pronounced. Because of this, the SC ruled that the two marks create the same visual and auditory impression.

The SC explained that if ISCO were allowed to use its NIKON mark, consumers would likely assume a connection with Nikon Corp. Given its reputation for cameras, the public might believe that ISCO’s household appliances are made, approved, or endorsed by Nikon Corp., or that it has expanded into household products.

The SC also warned that ISCO’s use of the NIKON mark would damage Nikon Corp.’s interests because it would weaken its mark’s ability to uniquely identify a single source of goods. The law protects famous trademarks from such uses to prevent the blurring of their distinctiveness and to preserve their value and reputation.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164274

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164266

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy

17/04/2026

SC said that not all kinds of noise is actionable. Sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution are not considered nuisance.
Hahaha alangan naman na may school na walang educational ingay, mga bata nga ang andun , alive and healthy at mga teachers na passionate magturo😊😉

The (SC) has ruled that sounds incident to the operation of an educational institution, those arising from a school’s regular activities, are not considered a nuisance and cannot make the school liable for damages.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition of Couples for Christ School of the Morning Star (School) and reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that awarded damages to residents of Saint Joseph Subdivision in Barangay Villa Kananga, Butuan City, where the school is located.

Wideline I. Malonda and others, who are residents of the Subdivision, claimed they were often exposed to loud noises from the School, such as drums and bugles being played, teachers speaking through microphones and megaphones, and students running, cheering and shouting during games played at the multipurpose center.

The residents claimed that these sounds, heard day and night, disturbed their sleep and peace at home.

In its defense, the School said it has been operating since 2012 with the necessary permits and clearances and that any noise comes only from regular classes. It added that the City Environment and Natural Resources Office conducted a test and found the noise to be within the allowed limits for residential areas. The School also claimed it took steps to reduce noise, such as building higher fences, planting trees, using small speakers, and limiting activities to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the residents’ complaint, ruling that they failed to prove they were harmed by the noise. The RTC also found that the School did not intend to harm the residents and acted in good faith by taking steps to reduce the noise.

On appeal, the CA ruled in the residents’ favor, holding that the School’s noise, which came not only from classes but also from other social functions in the multi-purpose hall, was a nuisance that caused discomfort and annoyance to the residents.

The SC overturned the CA’s ruling. It held that academic noise, or sounds from legitimate school activities, is not a nuisance.

Nuisance includes any disturbance that interferes with a person, property or comfort and enjoyment of all citizens. The SC ruled that the determination of whether a noise is a nuisance requires more than just considering the location, environment, and its effect on residents.

Thus, for noise to be considered nuisance, the SC considered in the 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱. 𝘷. 𝘈𝘊 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘐𝘯𝘤. the:

1. reliability of the noise pollution tests conducted,
2. introduction by the defendant of measures or improvements to mitigate the noise,
3. allowable noise levels,
4. defendant’s intention (or lack thereof) to cause harm to the plaintiff,
5. number of complaining witnesses,
6. representativeness of the plaintiff, and
7. actions of the plaintiff to alleviate his or her plight.

Adopting the framework, the SC finds that the sounds emanating from the School arose from its ordinary operations as an educational institution, and that the respondents are hardly representative of the community.

The SC also ruled that the residents failed to prove that the noise was unreasonably disturbing and that it worsened their health conditions. The residents’ statements showed only minor discomforts, not serious harm.

The SC added that while location and environment are important in determining a nuisance, they must be weighed against whether the noise is normally expected from the activity involved. Here, the sounds complained of did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected from a school.

The SC emphasized that there is no nuisance if an ordinary person would not find the sound disturbing, even if someone else is unusually sensitive to it.

The SC explained:

“𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴.”

The SC also denied the claim for damages since the School did not intend to harm or annoy the residents and had taken steps to reduce the noise. There was no evidence that the school caused the noise willfully, with malice or bad faith.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163502

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163486

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278875-formerly-udk-no-18061-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

15/04/2026

❤️🧡🧡